User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:10:06 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Here I am on page 22 rethinking whether GD should shirk jury duty or not.  LOL!  Tried by a Jury of your "Peers"... How boned might some of us be...  BIGGER_HAMMER 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:11:31 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While I feel for the guy that got shot since he was probably in the right on the custody he initiated physical contact with the shooter and threatened to take the gun and use it. If the camera woman was the dead dudes wife, wtf  Problem is the guy with the gun escalated because he went inside to get it. He's going to go to prison. The mom is going to get charged on something for setting the whole thing up. The kid is going to get to live without parents for awhile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:15:12 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are used ALL THE FUCKING TIME for custody issues. It's what essentially turned the entire thing from a really useful too to just noise that nobody pays attention to anymore. Actually? No. These custody disputes happen everyday. This is nothing new. Summary of Department of Justice Recommended Criteria There is reasonable belief by law enforcement that an abduction has occurred. The law enforcement agency believes that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. There is enough descriptive information about the victim and the abduction for law enforcement to issue an AMBER Alert to assist in the recovery of the child. The abduction is of a child aged 17 years or younger. The child’s name and other critical data elements, including the Child Abduction flag, have been entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:16:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Excellent advice. Excellent. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Some advice for yor guys and gals dating someone with a kid. If the bio-parents are fussing, stay the fuck out of it, unless it get's physical, they fucked, made a kid and are now doing whatever it is they are doing. Not your shit. If your BF/GF insists on you getting involved in it over verbal bullshit, EJECT! I don't care if they using terms like, whore, bastard, bitch, mother fucker etc, stay the fuck out of it. Excellent advice. Excellent. I was in a very similar situation. Minus guns. Long custody fight with ex over minor child. Ex finds a boyfriend, manipulates him against me (actually a series of boyfriends, one was smart enough to stay out of it, the other not) So she would violate the terms, keep him on my days, and use the boyfriend as a shield. The situation was at times explosive, I always walked away. In one scene, he dragged the child like a dog, away from me, he did not want to go to them. It backfired. All of it. The child saw her games and eventually she and the Mr. Wonderful 3.0 broke up, after having a child and started a custody fight of their own, over their child. Ex totally stopped fighting me as her attention was fully redirected to this new threat. I offered Mr. Wonderful 3.0 my presence in court, on his behalf, since I was her ex and could testify to her instability, etc. He said no. I said you have no idea what you are dealing with here, she is the female version of Anton Chigurth, even more sophisticated and manipulative. Actually closer to the persona in "Gone, girl". I was like, man she is going to grind you into sausage. Mr Wonderful 3.0 hired two (2) expensive lawyers against her and kicked her ass. And she had a vicious lawyer, an attack dog if I ever saw one. She lost kid number one to me and kid number 2 to her. Karma is a witch. With a capital "B". Be smart and play the long game. When you have a gun pointed at you, smile and say have a nice day and slowly back out of it. Don't bring guns to the fight, think *long term*. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:16:56 AM EDT
[#5]
Joe Biden's advice: literally says to "walk out" of your house and fire two blasts, with a shotgun. Leader of the free world, says leave your house, and start blasting away, and you don't even need an AR15 either to have results, can be done with just a double bbl shotgun, buy a shotgun...
 Biden: Take Double Barrelled Shotgun And "Fire Two Blasts Outside The House"  Buy A Shotgun Song - ft. VP Biden & Darren Criss |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:17:16 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Guys who marry or shack up with divorced or separated women with kid(s) automatically invite the non custodial dad(s) into their lives and onto their property. Even if there's a restraining order, he's still out there. that's right, you marry into all that baggage and her ex's and stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:19:48 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A guy picked up a gun he owns, on his own property and people are apoplectic about it. At what point would you arm yourself when there's a large, aggressive and threatening person on YOUR property, expressly refusing to leave? People need to stop seeing the legally armed person protecting his person, family and property as the aggressor here. Is a person allowed to possess a firearm on their own property in Texas? I rather think so. This piece of the thought chain is the effect of leftist brainwashing: "He 'introduced a firearm..... ' and that makes him the bad guy right there....." If you read my original post just one page earlier you'd see we are on the same page here. I have no problem with a property owner or someone who has claim to a domicile or business asking a trespasser to leave and when he doesn't and gets aggressive well he gets shot. This was a good shoot IMO. The shooters choice of how he went about it could have got him killed and thankfully it didn't. Domestic issues especially children are better handled in the courts because this is what happens when you take matters into your own hands. I personally am not angry about anything with this situation. It affects me none. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:19:55 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unless he was actively threatening physical harm to someone just be nice to the dude. You'll probably be in the same position in a couple of years, and unless the woman is a total shit bag the ex dude probably isn't that bad of a guy. Finding a woman who can speak highly of an ex (even if identifying some issue(s) that led to the dissolution) is going to mean you'll likely have a better relationship yourself. women are VERY good at the divide and conquer strategy, manipulating men against one another. The two goats were way to stupid to see the big picture, how she used them both, instead we should ally, as men. women are very good at empathizing and supporting each other, right or wrong. We fight, even when are on the same side. How stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:22:21 AM EDT
[#9]
From the video contents, it looks like it’s going to be a long hard prison sentence, for the guy with the rifle. He will probably be convicted of murder.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:22:31 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The entire custody issue means absolutely jack squat to whether this was a lawful shooting or not. Get over it, move on, let's not waste another word on the custody matter. It has absolutely zero legal weight on whether either party's actions were lawful. It gives no privileges to the decedent, and excuses no actions on the part of the shooter. Interference with custody, parental kidnapping, etc..none of them are legitimate issues in this case. Period. Throw allllllll of that shit out, and watch the video. A resident tells a visitor to leave. Visitor makes it clear he refuses. Resident arms himself. Visitor indicates he intends to take the weapon (armed robbery) and assault the resident (aggravated assault/battery). Resident uses deadly force. It's a justifiable self defense shooting. Move on. that is one way to look at it. Another way to look at it, the gun without a gun was threatened and tried to pull the gun out of fear for his life. Which way do you think the jury will look at it? Your way, or the alternative interpretation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:24:59 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL! Tried by a Jury of your "Peers"... How boned might some of us be... BIGGER_HAMMER You are not lying! When it's your time make it worth it because your friends, peers and even your family will fuck you over. Shit, nowadays your own kids or parents will jump onto the bus that drives over you! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:29:50 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The entire custody issue means absolutely jack squat to whether this was a lawful shooting or not. Get over it, move on, let's not waste another word on the custody matter. It has absolutely zero legal weight on whether either party's actions were lawful. It gives no privileges to the decedent, and excuses no actions on the part of the shooter. Interference with custody, parental kidnapping, etc..none of them are legitimate issues in this case. Period. Throw allllllll of that shit out, and watch the video. A resident tells a visitor to leave. Visitor makes it clear he refuses. Resident arms himself. Visitor indicates he intends to take the weapon (armed robbery) and assault the resident (aggravated assault/battery). Resident uses deadly force. It's a justifiable self defense shooting. Move on. That’s the dumbest fucking advice I’ve seen in GD in ages. That guy is going to prison. You will too if you follow this advice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:32:22 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How many custody disputes have you been to? How many children have you personally seized from their parents, under color of law? None? So *maybe* you might consider that you're out of your lane on this one. Granted, I have not served in the state of Texas, and its *possible* they have some sort of wildly different laws than the other states where I've been a LEO, but I'm doubting it. If there are any TX LEOs here I'd be curious to confirm that it's the same as elsewhere. Generally speaking, custody agreements are a civil matter. The parents go before a judge and bitch about each other, then get an agreed upon schedule for custody. If they violate it, they pay their lawyers big bucks to go back to court and bitch some more to the judge, who typically doesn't care and keeps the status quo. Usually someone then makes up a BS child abuse claim, which then leads to everyone going back to court for more circus. The father typically (but not always) gets screwed out of custody, and the drama continues on until kiddo becomes an adult. Barring a specific form of court order, in the form of a writ to law enforcement or an injunction against one of the parties, the "court order" means absolutely jack fucking squat in this situation. No judge on the fucking planet is going to write a court order granting one hostile party the right to trespass onto the other party's property. If you think otherwise, I encourage you to go consult a lawyer in your own personal life before proceeding to take actions like the newly ventilated dipshit from this case. A custody agreement does not give one party or the other the right to trespass on the other's property. On the contrary, in my AO I would likely be bound by law to arrest the baby daddy for domestic violence - trespass, had the incident ended just before the first shot. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, like many of the people in this thread, so please stop spouting incorrect bullshit and do some research. Trespass is one way to put it. Another way to put it he was there for a legit reason. I do get it, the smart thing to do was to leave, after realizing he wasn't gonna get his child. That was especially clear after a gun showed up on the scene. I think he went outside of boundaries of what's prudent because the system left him little choice, men are so disenfranchised, so disempowered that they are at the mercy of their exes. I had my ex violate court orders multiple times. The judges do absolutely nothing, maybe verbally admonish at most and then she is right back to it. You violate and they come down on you like a ton of bricks. Like I said, if he had chose the war path, he should have been much smarter about it. The shooter however is right on the line of what's criminal, whether he crossed it or not is for the jury to decide. I think the real question is, was there a clear and present danger, a threat to his life? If I were on the jury, I would say "NO". I mean with what? He had no gun, no knife. At the time of the shooting, he was a good, safe distance away. And was not in immanent danger, say like Kyle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:36:36 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone posted the relevant law on kidnapping? https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm The shooters actions appear to meet both criteria for abduction, though only one is required. The shooter is not a relative of the child, by the definition in this section, and since it was in violation of a court order, the intent to assume control was not lawful. A case could also be made for aggravated kidnapping, by (a)(5) since there seems to be evidence they intended to terrorize the father, and by (b) since the shooter used deadly force during the commission.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:39:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the dumbest fucking advice I've seen in GD in ages. That guy is going to prison. You will too if you follow this advice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:40:17 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh, This fits the definition of premeditated murder. He went inside to get a gun. Time for him to ride old smokie. By retrieving the gun he escalated the confrontation and the now dead guy was within his rights to fight for the gun. He gave up easily and the shooter was just itching to kill him. Yes and that's how the jury would see it. That combined with the fact there was no clear and present danger to him, when he stepped away. the dude that was shot was unarmed. it would be really hard to find sympathy for the shooter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:40:40 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They are used ALL THE FUCKING TIME for custody issues. It's what essentially turned the entire thing from a really useful too to just noise that nobody pays attention to anymore. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Amber alerts are for child abductions and are not typically used for child custody issues. There has to be a reasonable belief that the child is in danger of serious bodily harm or death. Child snatching is the term for parental abduction (in most states) not kidnapping. They are used ALL THE FUCKING TIME for custody issues. It's what essentially turned the entire thing from a really useful too to just noise that nobody pays attention to anymore. no. RIF |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:41:03 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually? No. These custody disputes happen everyday. This is nothing new. Summary of Department of Justice Recommended Criteria There is reasonable belief by law enforcement that an abduction has occurred. The law enforcement agency believes that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. There is enough descriptive information about the victim and the abduction for law enforcement to issue an AMBER Alert to assist in the recovery of the child. The abduction is of a child aged 17 years or younger. The child’s name and other critical data elements, including the Child Abduction flag, have been entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system. Oh I know what it says. I'm not saying that every custody dispute results in an AA. Of course they don't. I'm saying that the program was originally designed to EXCLUDE parental custody issues, and only alert on true/stranger abductions. Then they relaxed that, and that's now all you see. How many of them involve a parent, vs how many do not? I struggle to remember even a single one of them where the "abductor" was not a parent or other family member somehow wrapped up in their custody issues. There's nothing in that criteria to exclude a father who did not return their kid on time when the mother is in the lobby screaming that her child has been "abducted," and is in great danger, and demands you issue an amber alert. "The Law Enforcement Agency" does not want to accept the liability of refusing outright, so they are pretty much always going to do it. Knowing it's bullshit of course. This is why AA's are always involving a parent anymore. It's a good tool that's been co-opted like every other one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:41:44 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you read my original post just one page earlier you'd see we are on the same page here. I have no problem with a property owner or someone who has claim to a domicile or business asking a trespasser to leave and when he doesn't and gets aggressive well he gets shot. This was a good shoot IMO. The shooters choice of how he went about it could have got him killed and thankfully it didn't. Domestic issues especially children are better handled in the courts because this is what happens when you take matters into your own hands. I personally am not angry about anything with this situation. It affects me none. I should have excluded you. I was targeting those who think that way, not you specifically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:43:09 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Don't forget the newly single Justice of the Peace. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Sounds like shes gonna be single again.... any takers? You get a twofer, both women are single. Don't forget the newly single Justice of the Peace. That was part of the twofer 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:43:12 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Uh, This fits the definition of premeditated murder. He went inside to get a gun. Time for him to ride old smokie. By retrieving the gun he escalated the confrontation and the now dead guy was within his rights to fight for the gun. He gave up easily and the shooter was just itching to kill him. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Looks like a good shoot. The shooter appeared to be in fear for his life and the "victim" stood in his path of retreat back into his residence. I don't see how this could have played out any differently. Uh, This fits the definition of premeditated murder. He went inside to get a gun. Time for him to ride old smokie. By retrieving the gun he escalated the confrontation and the now dead guy was within his rights to fight for the gun. He gave up easily and the shooter was just itching to kill him. But, if it is his property is he not allowed to be armed? I really am having a hard time understanding some of the arguments made so far against the shooter. This being the biggest one. It seems if it was his property he could be armed, especially after telling the drad guy to leave. But again I reserve the right to change my position. Don't get me wrong, at best this was a case of jerks colliding. But, while I lean towards a legal shoot, I reserve the right to change my position. Because it seems that most of the argument for the shooters guilt appear to be based on speculative information. Like a lot of those solidly the other way are also missing information. Just one mans opinion, so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:48:54 AM EDT
[#22]
If the shooter's life really was in that much danger, why did he come back *out* to get closer to the other dude? If he felt he was about to be severely injured or killed in an assault, why did he let the other man get that close in the first place?
Bad shoot. He shot the other guy because his stupid ego got bruised. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 11:49:35 AM EDT
[#23]
If your life is in that much danger, why let the danger get that close to harming you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:01:55 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As I said about 5 times previous. Custody Disputes are settled at the Civil COURTS, not by the Cops. If you Ex is a Bitch & withholding your child from you, you go before the Judge having documented the breech and the Judge does the Needful on the Ex be it fines or jail. Mad Dad was a Mega-Tard to rage and try to push the issue Vs. Guy with a gun. Guy with a Gun was a Mega-Tard to get sucked into the game and will easily spend a $$$$$ of money to try & stay out of Jail on this. Yes all that, but one was a retard and the other one a criminal retard. Hard to say which one was more stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:09:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Green shirt reached for the gun.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:12:54 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryI don’t see that at all in your gif. I see him push up with the top of his wrist/arm? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:16:00 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Aren't you an attorney? Or am I confusing members? I am. Licensed in Texas even. I know Lubbock well; but even outside Lubbock in that county where the shooter’s inbred relatives are half the population, he’s still going to prison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:16:27 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh I know what it says. I'm not saying that every custody dispute results in an AA. Of course they don't. I'm saying that the program was originally designed to EXCLUDE parental custody issues, and only alert on true/stranger abductions. Then they relaxed that, and that's now all you see. How many of them involve a parent, vs how many do not? I struggle to remember even a single one of them where the "abductor" was not a parent or other family member somehow wrapped up in their custody issues. There's nothing in that criteria to exclude a father who did not return their kid on time when the mother is in the lobby screaming that her child has been "abducted," and is in great danger, and demands you issue an amber alert. "The Law Enforcement Agency" does not want to accept the liability of refusing outright, so they are pretty much always going to do it. Knowing it's bullshit of course. This is why AA's are always involving a parent anymore. It's a good tool that's been co-opted like every other one. We do this shit all the time. It's almost a weekly deal at some LEA's. An AA over a custody issue is not going to happen unless the child was forcefully abducted and there is a genuine threat of harm to the child. You are flat out wrong on the AA thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:24:31 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryBecause it seems that most of the argument for the shooters guilt appear to be based on speculative information. Like a lot of those solidly the other way are also missing information. "Speculative information?" We have two videos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:27:06 PM EDT
[#30]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:34:12 PM EDT
[#31]
Shorty had dreamed about this scenario many times...he was ready.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:37:15 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you blind? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Green shirt reached for the gun. https://i.imgur.com/qEwFwky.gif Are you blind? *I'll take your gun and use it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:37:45 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the shooter's life really was in that much danger, why did he come back *out* to get closer to the other dude? If he felt he was about to be severely injured or killed in an assault, why did he let the other man get that close in the first place? Bad shoot. He shot the other guy because his stupid ego got bruised. That whole - wait "right here while I walk into my home (without interference) to bring back my Assault Rifle thing so we can continue our "Barking Contest" " is what will sink him. He and Loud Mouth Lady could have simply walking inside, shut the door & called Police (Reasonable & Prudent standard tp avoid armed conflict) regarding the "trespasser". Since Lady is a Judge, he / she / they most likley know each other, which is why the case was recused and sent to TX AG office. If they do proceed - the acting D.A. will make hay out of this. Kyle might beat the Rap, but he certainly won't beat the HUGE expenses & costs of a Modern Criminal Defense Trial ... Either way - he's really in a pickle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:39:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am. Licensed in Texas even. I know Lubbock well; but even outside Lubbock in that county where the shooter’s inbred relatives are half the population, he’s still going to prison. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Aren't you an attorney? Or am I confusing members? I am. Licensed in Texas even. I know Lubbock well; but even outside Lubbock in that county where the shooter’s inbred relatives are half the population, he’s still going to prison. Are you not allowed to protect your property in texas? Regardless of why the “victim” was there, he was acting unreasonable and refused to leave when asked. He then escalated it to a physical altercation on the shooters property. He approached the shooter. Shooter has every right to bear arms on his own property, especially when someone’s there trespassing and acting erratic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:39:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes all that, but one was a retard and the other one a criminal retard. Hard to say which one was more stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As I said about 5 times previous. Custody Disputes are settled at the Civil COURTS, not by the Cops. If you Ex is a Bitch & withholding your child from you, you go before the Judge having documented the breech and the Judge does the Needful on the Ex be it fines or jail. Mad Dad was a Mega-Tard to rage and try to push the issue Vs. Guy with a gun. Guy with a Gun was a Mega-Tard to get sucked into the game and will easily spend a $$$$$ of money to try & stay out of Jail on this. Yes all that, but one was a retard and the other one a criminal retard. Hard to say which one was more stupid. The ARFCOM Answer ... BOTH!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:41:58 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the shooter's life really was in that much danger, why did he come back *out* to get closer to the other dude? Because its his property? Someone can come on your property, threaten you and your supposed to go inside and hide in a closet? Wtf is going on here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:42:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That whole - wait "right here while I walk into my home (without interference) to bring back my Assault Rifle thing so we can continue our "Barking Contest" " is what will sink him. He and Loud Mouth Lady could have simply walking inside, shut the door & called Police (Reasonable & Prudent standard tp avoid armed conflict) regarding the "trespasser". Since Lady is a Judge, he / she / they most likley know each other, which is why the case was recused and sent to TX AG office. If they do proceed - the acting D.A. will make hay out of this. Kyle might beat the Rap, but he certainly won't beat the HUGE expenses & costs of a Modern Criminal Defense Trial ... Either way - he's really in a pickle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If the shooter's life really was in that much danger, why did he come back *out* to get closer to the other dude? If he felt he was about to be severely injured or killed in an assault, why did he let the other man get that close in the first place? Bad shoot. He shot the other guy because his stupid ego got bruised. That whole - wait "right here while I walk into my home (without interference) to bring back my Assault Rifle thing so we can continue our "Barking Contest" " is what will sink him. He and Loud Mouth Lady could have simply walking inside, shut the door & called Police (Reasonable & Prudent standard tp avoid armed conflict) regarding the "trespasser". Since Lady is a Judge, he / she / they most likley know each other, which is why the case was recused and sent to TX AG office. If they do proceed - the acting D.A. will make hay out of this. Kyle might beat the Rap, but he certainly won't beat the HUGE expenses & costs of a Modern Criminal Defense Trial ... Either way - he's really in a pickle. Green shirt turns to black shirt says something. Black shirt leaves. Green shirt follows.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:43:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you not allowed to protect your property in texas? Regardless of why the “victim” was there, he was acting unreasonable and refused to leave when asked. He then escalated it to a physical altercation on the shooters property. He approached the shooter. Shooter has every right to bear arms on his own property, especially when someone’s there trespassing and acting erratic. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Aren't you an attorney? Or am I confusing members? I am. Licensed in Texas even. I know Lubbock well; but even outside Lubbock in that county where the shooter’s inbred relatives are half the population, he’s still going to prison. Are you not allowed to protect your property in texas? Regardless of why the “victim” was there, he was acting unreasonable and refused to leave when asked. He then escalated it to a physical altercation on the shooters property. He approached the shooter. Shooter has every right to bear arms on his own property, especially when someone’s there trespassing and acting erratic. Mad Dad wasn't STEALING Items or DAMAGING Property (especially at night). He wasn't trying to force himself into the house, breaking windows or any other "property crime". Even in Texas, we can't just shoot a Trespasser for being on our property and not leaving - call the Cops / Deputies - that is why they get that wonderful dental plan after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:44:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the gif not working. Do you not see green shirt yelling* into black shirt face. Pushing into him with his chest. Look down at gun, moving arm up. Extending fingers to grab magazine. *I'll take your gun and use it. Yes it's working....and it looks like he's pushing the guy away with the back of his hand. Like most people would do when swept by some idiot swinging a gun at the local GS. Look at his hand....he's not grabbing anything. Brushing it off. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:47:30 PM EDT
[#40]
What if the shooter deliberately created the situation in order to provoke a confrontation?
What level of planning would have to occur to have it be considered premeditated murder? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:48:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But, if it is his property is he not allowed to be armed? I really am having a hard time understanding some of the arguments made so far against the shooter. This being the biggest one. It seems if it was his property he could be armed, especially after telling the drad guy to leave. But again I reserve the right to change my position. I guess first question would be if the deceased was trespassing or if he had a lawful right to be at the property, in the front yard. If he had paperwork from the court saying that was the date and time to take custody of his child, he does have the lawful right to be there. If the mother is refusing to hand over the child she is violation the custody agreement. Now, say he is just an average Joe trespasser, the shooter is obviously not in danger of serious physical injury or death as the deceased, while agitated, isn't threatening to kill him or anything of the sort. Sounds like he is saying he is going to have subpoenas issued. The shooter obviously has time to enter the residence without being harassed and return with a firearm. The sticking point (if the deceased is indeed trespassing) is if lethal force is considered reasonable use of force when someone is refusing to leave your front yard. If lethal force isn't justified, guy with the gun can no longer use a defense claim as he becomes the aggressor of the situation. If someone pulls a gun on you when lethal force isn't justified, you have the lawful authority to resist that force. That's my take at least. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:50:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mad Dad wasn't STEALING Items or DAMAGING Property (especially at night). He wasn't trying to force himself into the house, breaking windows or any other "property crime". Even in Texas, we can't just shoot a Trespasser for being on our property and not leaving - call the Cops / Deputies - that is why they get that wonderful dental plan after all. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Aren't you an attorney? Or am I confusing members? I am. Licensed in Texas even. I know Lubbock well; but even outside Lubbock in that county where the shooter’s inbred relatives are half the population, he’s still going to prison. Are you not allowed to protect your property in texas? Regardless of why the “victim” was there, he was acting unreasonable and refused to leave when asked. He then escalated it to a physical altercation on the shooters property. He approached the shooter. Shooter has every right to bear arms on his own property, especially when someone’s there trespassing and acting erratic. Mad Dad wasn't STEALING Items or DAMAGING Property (especially at night). He wasn't trying to force himself into the house, breaking windows or any other "property crime". Even in Texas, we can't just shoot a Trespasser for being on our property and not leaving - call the Cops / Deputies - that is why they get that wonderful dental plan after all. I dont know man, i just dont see it. If you dont want deaded dont go on someone’s property acting a fool. If there was a custody issue that has to be dealt with on neutral ground. Not by yelling and threatening on someone’s property. And if your asked to leave, dont approach an armed landowner and threaten them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:52:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Looks like a bad shoot to me. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:53:41 PM EDT
[#44]
Shooter was a dumbass.
Shooter told dude to leave. Dead guy escalated. Shooter wasn't bluffing. I totally think the shooter was a dumbass for bringing the gun into the fight, but given the video I'm saying jury is out. Not guilty. Not innocent. Context and backstory will come out and will say a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:54:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryI’m not seeing a reach for the gun. I’m seeing him push the gun off his arm. It looks like black shirt has the rail pressing against green shirts forearm, and green shirt shoved it away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:57:44 PM EDT
[#46]
If the shooter didn't call 911 before he walked in the house to get the gun he's fucked. The jury isn't going to agree with gd that its ok to shoot trespassers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 12:58:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m not seeing a reach for the gun. I’m seeing him push the gun off his arm. It looks like black shirt has the rail pressing against green shirts forearm, and green shirt shoved it away. The gun wouldn’t have been on his arm if he hadn’t walked over and pressed his arm against it. I mean just plain stand your ground law applies here, but being on your own property trumps that. How about if the guy had went through proper channels to get this resolved if there was an issue? If he had rights given by a court, then he must go to that court where rights were granted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 1:00:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What if the shooter deliberately created the situation in order to provoke a confrontation? What level of planning would have to occur to have it be considered premeditated murder? In Texas, murders are always premeditated. Otherwise, it’s some other kind of homicide. He could get a capital murder charge if the murder is deemed to have occurred in the course of committing another felony crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 1:00:49 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If the shooter didn't call 911 before he walked in the house to get the gun he's fucked. The jury isn't going to agree with gd that its ok to shoot trespassers. Matter of fact, I’m pretty sure the guy that got shot called 911. Most people committing crimes don’t call 911 to help them. And if AR15.com doesn’t think you are self defense, the general public is definitely not going to think so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2021 1:02:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The kid wasn't even there and he wasn't keeping anyone from anyone. Your analysis is quite literally garbage. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anyone posted the relevant law on kidnapping? https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm The shooters actions appear to meet both criteria for abduction, though only one is required. The shooter is not a relative of the child, by the definition in this section, and since it was in violation of a court order, the intent to assume control was not lawful. A case could also be made for aggravated kidnapping, by (a)(5) since there seems to be evidence they intended to terrorize the father, and by (b) since the shooter used deadly force during the commission. The kid wasn't even there and he wasn't keeping anyone from anyone. Your analysis is quite literally garbage. That's the point. The kid wasn't there. They took the kid somewhere else, in violation of a court order. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
